Tuesday, September 15, 2009

The rules are back (But I'm not quite yet)

Rule #130: One way to cut health care costsWhen health care reform passes - and it will - administrators have a right to deny it to anyone who protested against it. OK, maybe that's too harsh, but it's very, very likely that not all among the thousands upon thousands who have mobbed every free health care event across the country in recent months have been raging socialists. This suggests that at least some of those who reject reform on financial/political grounds will be among the first in line when health care becomes more affordable. Quite possibly because the need overrides the only-in-a-vacuum ideals of the free-market fetishists.

Rule #131: Us WeaklyIt's one thing to refer to you and your spouse as "we" when describing your day. But saying that "we were dilated" during childbirth is pushing it just a bit.

Rule #132: Republicans Party like it's 1969Now that Ted Kennedy has died, aspiring Republican humorists must move on. It's 2009; time to at least move on to the 1970s. Your politics are stuck in 1980, so I know you can do it!

Rule #133: Super Size SeetheEnough! With! The! Upselling! The other day, I went to a large bookseller to purchase a magazine with cash. Something to read during a solo lunch. But before I could plunk down the money, I had to endure a pitch for a store card ("Save 10 percent right now! That's 30 cents!") and was asked for my e-mail address (try spelling ianmcgibboney for someone who's never met you). Yes, she was nice, and it's not her fault, but it's overkill.

Same deal with electronics. If you want to sell me an extended warranty that costs nearly half of the price of the product, ensuring that the store's crack squad will take care of the device if it malfunctions, at least know what you're selling. If you think an Apple laptop goes well with pie, I won't be inclined to rely on you for tech support. So don't bother asking.

I understand that a basic rule of sales is, "Don't sell one when you can sell two. And don't sell two when you can sell a whole set." But that's also crack-addict logic, and it doesn't take into account all the times I didn't buy precisely because I don't care to recreate the experience of my worst dates. No means no!

Rule #134: ACORN nutsNo matter how much you wet your pants with glee over the latest ACORN scandal, it isn't going to result in President Obama's impeachment. Sorry. But I'm sure that's not why you care. I'm sure it's all about protecting this country from voter fraud. And that your sudden 180 on this issue is strictly from hindsight.

Rule #135: Brady's BunchESPN must quit beating around the bush and propose to Tom Brady. SportsCenter has been a round-the-clock valentine to the Patriots quarterback this weekend. Yes, he's won multiple Super Bowls. Yes, he's back after a year on the sidelines. But he's not the best. The Patriots beat the Bills because of a lucky fumble. Brady is 7th in the QB ratings this week, below Tony Romo, Drew Brees and Brodie Croyle...and three others. Brady's among the best, sure, but Brees is infinitely more fun to watch, and makes for a more interesting interview. Let's at least wait and see how Brady stacks up this year before all the love letters. Otherwise, it just seems like you're living in the past, ESPN.

Tom - Knock it off. For more than a year now, we've been hearing Obama and ACORN in the same sentence, and every time someone in the group missteps, it becomes a teabagger obsession. If it's not about Obama, then what is it about? And yes, that's a serious question.

NOLA - Thanks for the props. Brees is my fantasy quarterback, and he got me 42 points this week - almost the entire point total of my opponent, who had the (understandable) misfortune of starting Donovan McNabb.

Tom - Knock it off. For more than a year now, we've been hearing Obama and ACORN in the same sentence, and every time someone in the group missteps, it becomes a teabagger obsession. If it's not about Obama, then what is it about? And yes, that's a serious question.

//Sure that's true, Obama/Democrats and ACORN are intimately linked (he did give them 800k just last year, btw) but you specifically state that at least some on the right think ACRON scandals will lead to Obama's impeachment. I haven't seen that accusation anywhere. Perhaps you have sources.//

Perhaps, Tom, you're not such a douche that you realize I'm dealing with insinuation. Because that's what conservatives are all about. They aren't going to say anything they feel straight-up, because it's indefensible to say, "I don't think a black man should be president," or, "The ACORN scandal is proof that a group run by black people with ties to our black president cannot be trusted." But all the signals are there. At work, we fielded several phone calls about this story. It's all every conservative I know is talking about. Why? If it isn't about Obama somehow, why would they care so vociferously? And why do you choose to pretend that there's no connection with this anti-ACORN lust and Obama? Tell me, Tom. Please tell me. Make an affirmative statement for once instead of asking me snide questions.

Perhaps, Tom, you're not such a douche that you realize I'm dealing with insinuation.

//Ah I see, you're just making stuff up. If I had known that I would have taken a different approach.//

They aren't going to say anything they feel straight-up, because it's indefensible to say, "I don't think a black man should be president," or, "The ACORN scandal is proof that a group run by black people with ties to our black president cannot be trusted."

//Yep, that poor, put upon group of child prostitution supporting, voter fraud committing asswipes are soooo undeserving of scorn. OBVIOUSLY the only reason people dislike them is because they are racist. The Senate Ian, which if you weren't aware, has a 60 seat Dem majority, just voted 83-7 to strip ACORN funding from recent appropriations. Are you INSINUATING that those very same Democrats are racist too? I mean because the only reason people attack ACORN is because they are evil, vile racists, right? Are those Democrats racist Ian? hmmmm?//

It's all every conservative I know is talking about. Why?

//I don't know Ian, maybe it has something to do with them willing to HELP PIMPS SECURE HOUSING FOR UNDER-AGE EL SALVADORIAN PROSTITUTES. Just maybe, you think?

Obama had the support of 70%+ of the electorate in January Ian, now he has the support of around 50%. Is it your belief Ian that over 9 months a large percentage of Obama supporters SUDDENLY became racists? Is that really your thinking? You ever think that maybe they just aren't comfortable with his quick lurch to the far left policy-wise and it has nothing to do with race?

Look I realize that you liberals have no way to defend Obama's idiotic policies so you naturally fall back on the one thing you always do, playing the race card. But it's not applicable Ian. It just SCREAMS desperation. //

Tom, the reason ACORN is losing these contracts is because vile people such as yourself have tainted the group to such a severe degree. ACORN does a lot of good work. By the way, those voter-fraud allegations? Reported by ACORN themselves. That's how you and your desperate ilk even got to know about them in the first place.

As for racism, your all-caps remark about "underage El Salvadoran prostitutes" does not help your case at all. Why does it matter that they're El Salvadoran? Can't you be outraged at this ALLEGED incident (which, even if it IS undoctored, doesn't indict ACORN as a whole) without noting the nationality? And you have the nerve to say I'M hung up on race!

Finally, I suspect that a lot of Obama's sagging support is from progressives, who feel like he isn't working fast enough to do what he promised, largely because he feels he has to oppose shrill teabagger bigots who will never, ever support him. And I suspect race has a lot to do with it, because nothing else makes any sense. Neither you nor anyone else on the right, Tom, is making a case against it (or for anything, for that matter). One of these days, you'll learn that criticizing me and other liberals does not pass for an argument. I hope.

Tom, the reason ACORN is losing these contracts is because vile people such as yourself have tainted the group to such a severe degree.

//Yeah, it's all my fault. Their systemic corruption and in-built culture of fraud and criminal activity has nothing to do with their problems. nothing at all//

ACORN does a lot of good work.

//for child whoring pimps, apparently.//

By the way, those voter-fraud allegations? Reported by ACORN themselves. That's how you and your desperate ilk even got to know about them in the first place.

/Is that supposed to be a feather in their cap? lol. "hey guys we're corrupt and committing serious crimes over here, just letting you know!". Thanks for the heads up ACORN!//

As for racism, your all-caps remark about "underage El Salvadoran prostitutes" does not help your case at all. Why does it matter that they're El Salvadoran?

//Oh horrors, I stated facts! That's outrageous and racist! You're too funny Ian. I bet if I didn't mention the nationality of these make believe under age prostitutes my omission would have been seen by you as a sign of my OBVIOUS hatred of El Salvadorians. It's amazing how you wrap the narrative around whatever fantasy setting your mind conceives. lol//

Finally, I suspect that a lot of Obama's sagging support is from progressives,

//Right, 20% of "progressives" stopped supporting Obama and turned racist, is that what you're saying?//

And I suspect race has a lot to do with it, because nothing else makes any sense.

//Right right, and if it was Hilary in office we'd all be sexists for opposing her. Like I said, it's amazing how you totally fail to see that LOTS of people are opposed to Obama because of his policies and construct this fantasy world to reinforce your own pre-conceived opinions about "the right". I'm not sure if you've noticed Ian but not everyone is a big fan of liberal policies and a huge, bloated government bureaucracy dictating their health care. Sorry Ian, America isn't the liberal wonderland you think it is. There are still a lot more moderates and conservatives than far left liberals like you and Obama.//

I think anyone who can look at this entire scenario and not say race has something substantial to do with it, is batshit crazy.

When people support actions from a white guy and want to violently secede from the Union when a black man carries out the same or very similar actions (e.g. tax cuts, government spending, etc...) then race is a factor.

I think some of his numbers falling is a product of the progressive attitude. Contrary to Tom's statement, Obama's policies and decision have been very centrist and even right-leaning. (e.g. entertaining "indefinite detention", Afghan push, TARP, etc...).

I would also venture to say such an organized push of outright propoganda such as: Kenyan birth certificates, death panels, illegal immigrant healthcare, secret Muslim, Socialist, Nazi, Communist, racist etc... have also not helped his numbers. One thing is for sure though. Numbers are fickle things, and they will almost certainly shift many times throughout his presidency.

Tom - it's very interesting to me how everything you say is an attack against me, some twisted hypothetical look into my train of thought, a reiteration of Obama's falling poll numbers or a combination of all three. It's almost as if you can't address anything affirmatively, and instead aim merely to make me look bad.

Well, here's one way you can do it. NOLA Progressive has an impressive list of bugaboos the right has pushed against Obama that could be construed as racist. I'd add ACORN to that list, because they work to register low-income and minority voters, and their name is often used as shorthand to inflame rather than to open up a serious discussion. So, Tom, if you want to make NOLA and I look bad, why don't you explain to us how none of this is racist in nature?

I can't truly believe anyone with a brain would try and stand on this completely faked out crapola video B.S. about prostitution, tax advice, and general crapola.

Also, don't use a complete racist douchebag as the cornerstone for your, "it has nothing to do with race" argument man. Are you aware that assbag was kicked out of his dorm for calling everyone on his floor a bunch of n*****s?

//Oh my, you're calling me a racist without a single shred of proof (despite me asking for it numerous times) and it's turned around as ME "attacking" YOU! hilarious!//

NOLA Progressive has an impressive list of bugaboos the right has pushed against Obama that could be construed as racist.

//Why don't we start off with you telling me how they are racist and we'll go from there. I'm sure it will include liberal buzz words like "code words" and "insinuation"(I read liberal blogs too Ian, so I know all current memes you subscribe to) so have it Ian. In fact, make a new blog post in which you accuse roughly 50& of America, including quite a few Democrats, as racist and lay out your case. Let's do that. It'll be grand, we'll have a merry old time!//

Tom, every item on that list is an attempt to paint Obama as a foreigner, a traitor or otherwise Not A Real American. With racial context removed, there is literally NO POINT to any of it. If none of that is racist to you, what the hell is? Does someone literally have to say, "I am a racist," for it to count as racist to you?

How about answering our questions or countering our charges instead of being a whiny bitch?

Jesus Tom. Why don't you just stop all the crap and just admit that a lot of people have a problem with a black president? It's not everyone. Politics, religion, misperception, money, and probably lots of other factors all play major roles as well, but damn come on!

Also, don't tout some type of intellectual high ground by accusing Ian of subscriing to liberal "memes". You certainly are well versed in all the counterpart memes. It occurs to me that you have never presented one cogent argument while commenting here. You get aggravated about blind party adherence, but all you do is attempt to write things specifically intended to fire people up along those lines. You rarely support anything you say with substantial fact, and the few facts or substantials you do provide can't be explained or upheld following any type of scrutiny.

I think that some folks just like the argument factor. The point being discussed isn't important, just the argument and their perception of "winning it". Tom seems to me to be another one of these. He's actually very similar to that first bozo you had to ban for all of his vulgarities and ridiculous insults. It's about trying to get under people's skin and nothing to do with real policy or ideaology discussion.

I've often thought the same thing, NOLA. I've given him more leeway because he's slightly more intelligent than those other clowns, and he isn't hiding. But he is getting on my last nerve with this discussion.

Tom, every item on that list is an attempt to paint Obama as a foreigner, a traitor or otherwise Not A Real American.

//I don't see how any of those are racist. Bush was called a liar, a traitor, a racist, a mass murderer and directly blamed for the losses on 9-11. But oh gosh we call Obama's shit policies shit and bad for the country and it's suddenly racist! It's called heated rhetoric Ian, you should know you engaged in it the last 8 years, you know, when it was OK for us common folk to dislike the president.

This is all part of the regular liberal playbook of heating up class warfare and then hoping to benefit politically from it. You do it when the right maligns corrupt unions and say we hate the middle class, you do it when the right calls Hilary a vile socialist bitch and say we hate women, you do it when the right wants to enforce immigration laws and say we hate mexicans and on and on. It's all you guys have, you can't win on your policies because "TAX EVERYONE TO THE LIMIT" is political poison so you dress it up and pretend like taxing the fuck out of companies isn't really a backdoor tax on the consumers of those companies. You have nothing so every point has to be turned into class warfare so you have ANY shot at winning anything. ///

but all you do is attempt to write things specifically intended to fire people up along those lines. You rarely support anything you say with substantial fact

//So says the guy that calls me a racist without an iota of proof.//

It's about trying to get under people's skin

//Again, says the guy that calls me a racist and can't back it up.//

But he is getting on my last nerve with this discussion.

//Ah I see, I get to be berated and called a racist and a whiny bitch but I'm the one causing the problem. yeah, it's all me.//

This is the last time I'm putting up with you. You're more interested in being reactionary and a shit-kicker than having any real discussion. I gave you one more chance to comment, asking you not to follow your usual unproductive template, and you reply by following that template EXACTLY. So you're done here.

Your latest comments reflect a terminal inability to see any subtlety in debate. And I know it's on purpose. I know you aren't really so stupid that you think the Democratic Party platform is, "TAX EVERYONE TO THE LIMIT," or that there's no racism involved in alleging that Barack Obama is a Kenyan with Muslim ties (or of continually posting mock-ups of Obama as your avatar). I know that right-wing talking points and ad hominem attacks are much easier and more instantly gratifying, but they're not the basis for a real discussion and you don't want that anyway. So, bye.

It would be so nice to actually get one balanced and rational conservative to engage in conversation. Someone who might be able to lend an alternate but insightful point of view. But, all we get is the crazies.